Democracy vs Autocracy.
I'll accept. It seems like a suitable challenge.
Secondly,in autocracy decision is been taken by an individual while in democracy decision is been taken by group of people elected by the citizen of the country.
Also,leadership is taken over from generation to generation whereas in democracy it is not so.There are chances that the government in autocracy can cheat people as there is no opposition party whereas this risk reduces in democracy.
With a proper leader, an autocracy is one of the best forms of government a country can have.
I quote from DDO:
In terms of potential:
If the autocrat is a god-like figure, he knows what the people want, what the people need, he grants freedom of everything, he makes good policies, and he is never tiring, then yes. It is efficient and avoid rite rule.
A herd of people can do the same. We can assume that this is a herd of reasonable people. Except they have to all get together and vote and argue with each other, and they may not always be right.
That was purely hypothetical. In fact, in most modern cases, representative democracies do much better in terms of human happiness and achievement and happiness. But it is also important to note that these same countries are already filthy rich when they started to become democratic. Undeveloped nations NEED a strong hand instead of unregulated "mob rule" in a competitive world like this. Russia, China, Libya, would never have gotten so much better than before if it weren't for ruthless and reasonable authoritarian rule. Hopefully, when these societies ripe, they become more democratic
Compared with the number of developed countries and underdeveloped countries, autocracies for developing countries is what we NEED RIGHT NOW, and then, if and only then, can democracies take over.
Undeniably, autocracies pave the way for democracies.
If we look in the past we can see all kinds of exapmles.
China, Russia, and Germany went through a bigger growth in 5 years than America in 40 years.
Since autocracies (from monarchies to dictatorships) are foundations for government self-rule, the are inarguably more important.
Now my opponent will have to prove to us why we don't need autocracies for blossoming countries and why mob rule is much more effective (MY GOD LOOK AT THE IDIOTS VOTING FOR TRUMP. AMERICA WILL BURN).
Democracies help control the range of outcomes. Visionaries in democracies can accomplish much sometimes, as did Manmohan Singh when Finance Minister of India from 1991-1996, Margaret Thatcher after she became Prime Minister of Britain in 1979, Ronald Reagan as US president during the 1980s, and Japan"s leaders after World War II. However, their accomplishments are usually constrained by due process that includes legislative, judicial, and interest group constraints. On the other hand, bad leaders in democracies are also constrained, not only by due process, but also in addition by the reporting of a free competitive press and television, and nowadays too by a competitive Internet.
Also,how the people of the country be happy if they are not given the freedom of speech and the leaders ruling them are not of their choice.In addition,in the absence of the opposition party and the freedom of press there no restriction on the government from anywhere .In this case, there are more chances that the leader may take advantage of the opportunity and may get corrupted.So,not only the economic part but also the satisfaction of the people is a must in the country.
So,for the developing countries the risk of shifting to the autocracy is unacceptable thing as it might shiver the whole economy of the country.
Let me make my stance clear.
Autocracy is the necessary prerequisite for democracy.
It is the autocracy that gives a country structure and differentiates it from an unruly mob.
Then and ONLY THEN can a democracy be fostered.
Thus, if democracy needs autocracy, but autocracy doesn't need democracy, then surely autocracy must be a better system of governance than democracy.
The opponent didn't respond to my argument; I made it clear that it is the PRO's burden to prove to us why and how democracy can stand without a previous autocratic system. They didn't follow through with the burden.
Let's move onto my rebuttals:
While this argument misleadingly says "visionaries", this is actually about the system of checks and balances that limit the potential growth of a country. He gives us examples of "good" leaders-- as if the world is so black and white that all presidents are good and all rulers are bad. That is sadly not the case.
Did you know that there are currently more failed democratic states than autocratic states?
Developing countries need autocracy to form an economic basis that they can grow from.
***I'll cover this more in my extensions***
3. For Developing Countries, Autocracy is Unnaceptable
This is blatantly incorrect. Let's see why.
A. Need for Autocracy
A study shown in the Economist tells us:
"What makes ethnically diverse but autocratic China different, given it has enjoyed rapid growth for the past two decades?
Rapid growth is one thing. In 1980, India (pro-democrati) and China (pro-autocratic) were both in relative autarky. By 2007, India’s GDP had almost doubled, but China’s increased seven-fold. India’s growth was primarily services (farming) led; China’s was industry based. China’s fast growth owed to state autocratic policy, Jeffrey Sachs and Messrs Acemoglu and Robinson agree."
Therefore, this shows us that for beginning countries that are new to the world stage, they need a firm hand to provide a firm base. Considering the fact that there are more developing countries that developed, this needs to be seriously considered.
B. Change in Leadership
Changes in leadership are actually much more frequent that the PRO would have you believe (probably because they use the cliched example of North Korea)
"Second, if our view of successful autocracy is correct, we should find that high growth autocracies have higher leadership turnover than expected. This turns out to be the case. The probability of leadership change every year is 13% for high growth autocracies and 7% for low growth ones."
C. Faster Action
"According to statistics, the time required to implement a bill in India (Democratic nation) is 1,420 days while in China (Autocratic nation) is a mere 292 days. Visionary leaders can accomplish more in autocratic than democratic governments because they need not heed legislative, judicial, or media constraints in promoting their agenda. In the late 1970s, Deng Xiaoping made the decision to open communist China to private incentives in agriculture, and in a remarkably short time farm output increased dramatically. Autocratic rulers in Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, and Chile produced similar quick turnabouts in their economies by making radical changes that usually involved a greater role for the private sector and private business"
An autocracy is like a family. The father is the stern figure that has almost complete control over the family. He can buy whatever he wants, he can teach however he wants. It's in his best interests to keep the family happy because otherwise, the children will rebel and his wife might leave-- which is her trump card. Now, I ask you: How much did you love your father?
Thank you, and may the better debater win!
Now,let me answer your views one by one:-
1)VISIONARIES:-I haven't mentioned anywhere that all the presidents are good and all the rulers are bad.But the point is if a president is bad in a democratic country,there are opposition parties which will strongly oppose them whereas in case of bad rulers in the absence of the opposition party they are not opposed by anyone and they can ruin the country and people.
2)FREEDOMS:- In this case,I am surprised that the CON can compromise with the freedoms of the people.Also,you haven't mentioned anything about freedoms in the extensions as you wrote "I'll cover this more in my extensions".You have just mentioned that the economic growth increases rapidly.Its as people would act like puppets for the ruler without raising your voice even if you are right.
Also, a country cannot be run by just looking at one point that is economic growth.Even if the country develops many times but even after such development the people do not get their freedoms I think its of no use.
And I am not saying that the change in the leadership is infrequent but its risky.
Modern Korea shows that dictators may be able to bring about economic development " but only to a point. Then political openness becomes crucial to keep that growth story going. Korea therefore provides important lessons for the rest of the emerging world, especially China.
Lastly, you are telling about faster actions.As opinions of the people is not taken in the autocracy so definitely there would be faster actions.But if the views of the people are not taken in account then sometimes it might happen that the thing unwilling by the people is been implemented.
So,I would end adding that the country cannot be made autocratic just on the grounds of the economic development.There are many issues that need to be taken into account.
Autocracies are necessary before democracies.
My opponent has no comment on this important fact.
Nor has he rebutted to any of my arguments.
Economic growth is brought by autocracies only to a point. Same applies to communism, same applies to democracies, same applies to all ideologies.
That economic growth point by autocracies is higher than any democracies will be able to achieve.
Deomcracies and autocracies can have both good and bad leaders. Look at the British kingdom. It still has a monarchy, which has served the country well, but it also has a Parliament, and both have experienced equal amounts of growth (proportionally) under both leaderships.
I'm not sacrificing any freedoms. Just because a country is an autocracy doesn't mean you should automatically think of it as being ruled by an evil dicator. North Korea is an example of a failed dictatorship. Angola, Zimbabwe, and the Congo are examples of failed democracies. Autocracies have as much speech freedom as democracies-- and not even democracies ensure freedom of speech. There's an undeniable stigma around certain topics that it's almost restrictive.
3. Developing Countries
My opponent didn't even extend his own argument!
My point remains strong that autocracies are necessary before democracies.
My arguments and extensions, which my opponent didn't respond to either.
A. Need for Autocracy
Need for autocracy to provide a fundamental basis for all types of government is undeniable.
B. Change in LeadershipChanges in leadership in autocracies are possible, like democracies.
C. Faster Action
Autocracies make faster decisions. To prevent a coup d'etat, the leader makes decisions in the best interests of the people.
These are the reasons why CON takes the debate.